Search

PURPOSE: To explore data availability, perceived relevance, acceptability and feasibility of implementing 52 draft indicators for adolescent health measurement in different countries globally. METHODS: A mixed-methods, sequential explanatory study was conducted in 12 countries. An online spreadsheet was used to assess data availability and a stakeholder survey to assess perceived relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of implementing each draft indicator proposed by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent health (GAMA). The assessments were discussed in virtual meetings with all countries and in deep dives with three countries. Findings were synthesized using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data availability varied across the 52 draft GAMA indicators and across countries. Nine countries reported measuring over half of the indicators. Most indicators were rated relevant by stakeholders, while some were considered less acceptable and feasible. The ten lowest-ranking indicators were related to mental health, sexual health and substance use; the highest-ranking indicators centered on broader adolescent health issues, like use of health services. Indicators with higher data availability and alignment with national priorities were generally considered most relevant, acceptable and feasible. Barriers to measurement included legal, ethical and sensitivity issues, challenges with multi-sectoral coordination and data systems flexibility. DISCUSSION: Most of the draft GAMA indicators were deemed relevant and feasible, but contextual priorities and perceived acceptability influenced their implementation in countries. To increase their use for a more comprehensive understanding of adolescent health, better multi-sectoral coordination and tailored capacity building to accommodate the diverse data systems in countries will be required.

PURPOSE: To assess the relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework for adolescent health measurement, both in terms of age disaggregation and different health domains captured, and how the adolescent health indicators recommended by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) can complement the SDG framework. METHODS: We conducted a desk review to systematically map all 248 SDG indicators using the UN metadata repository in three steps: 1) age-related mandates for SDG reporting; 2) linkages between the SDG indicators and priority areas for adolescent health measurement; 3) comparison between the GAMA indicators and the SDG framework. RESULTS: Of the 248 SDG indicators, 35 (14%) targeted an age range overlapping with adolescence (10-19 years) and 33 (13%) called for age disaggregation. Only one indicator (3.7.2 "adolescent birth rate") covered the entire 10-19 age range. Almost half (41%) of the SDG indicators were directly related to adolescent health, but only 33 of those (13% of all SDG indicators) overlapped with the ages 10-19, and 15 (6% of all SDG indicators) explicitly mandated age disaggregation. Among the 47 GAMA indicators, five corresponded to existing SDG indicators, and eight were adolescent-specific age adaptations. Several GAMA indicators shed light on aspects not tracked in the SDG framework, such as obesity, mental health, physical activity, and bullying among 10-19-year-olds. DISCUSSION: Adolescent health cannot be monitored comprehensively with the SDG framework alone. The GAMA indicators complement this framework via age-disaggregated adaptations and by tracking aspects of adolescent health currently absent from the SDGs.

PURPOSE: This article describes the selection of priority indicators for adolescent (10-19 years) health measurement proposed by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent health advisory group and partners, building on previous work identifying 33 core measurement areas and mapping 413 indicators across these areas. METHODS: The indicator selection process considered inputs from a broad range of stakeholders through a structured four-step approach: (1) definition of selection criteria and indicator scoring; (2) development of a draft list of indicators with metadata; (3) collection of public feedback through a survey; and (4) review of the feedback and finalization of the indicator list. As a part of the process, measurement gaps were also identified. RESULTS: Fifty-two priority indicators were identified, including 36 core indicators considered to be most important for measuring the health of all adolescents, one alternative indicator for settings where measuring the core indicator is not feasible, and 15 additional indicators for settings where further detail on a topic would add value. Of these indicators, 17 (33%) measure health behaviors and risks, 16 (31%) health outcomes and conditions, eight (15%) health determinants, five (10%) systems performance and interventions, four (8%) policies, programmes, laws, and two (4%) subjective well-being. DISCUSSION: A consensus list of priority indicators with metadata covering the most important health issues for adolescents was developed with structured inputs from a broad range of stakeholders. This list will now be pilot tested to assess the feasibility of indicator data collection to inform global, regional, national, and sub-national monitoring.

PURPOSE: A host of recent initiatives relating to adolescent health have been accompanied by varying indicator recommendations, with little stakeholder coordination. We assessed currently included adolescent health-related indicators for their measurement focus, identified overlap across initiatives, and determined measurement gaps. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to map the existing indicator landscape as depicted by major measurement initiatives. We classified indicators as per 33 previously identified core adolescent health measurement areas across five domains and by age groups. We also identified indicators common across measurement initiatives even if differing in details. RESULTS: We identified 413 indicators across 16 measurement initiatives, with most measuring health outcomes and conditions (162 [39%]) and health behaviors and risks (136 [33%]); followed by policies, programs, and laws (49 [12%]); health determinants (44 [11%]); and system performance and interventions (22 [5%]). Age specification was available for 221 (54%) indicators, with 51 (23%) focusing on the full adolescent age range (10-19 years), 1 (<1%) on 10-14 years, 27 (12%) on 15-19 years, and 142 (64%) on a broader age range including adolescents. No definitional information, such as numerator and denominator, was available for 138 indicators. We identified 236 distinct indicators after accounting for overlap. CONCLUSION: The adolescent health measurement landscape is vast and includes substantial variation among indicators purportedly assessing the same concept. Gaps persist in measuring systems performance and interventions; policies, programs, and laws; and younger adolescents' health. Addressing these gaps and harmonizing measurement is fundamental to improve program implementation and accountability for adolescent health globally.

BACKGROUND: A variety of global-level monitoring initiatives have recommended indicators for tracking progress in maternal and newborn health. As a first step supporting the work of WHO's Mother and Newborn Information for Tracking Outcomes and Results (MoNITOR) Technical Advisory Group, we aimed to compile and synthesize recommended indicators in order to document the landscape of maternal and newborn measurement and monitoring. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of indicators proposed by global multi-stakeholder groups to suggest next steps to further support maternal and newborn measurement and monitoring. Indicators pertaining to pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum/postnatal and newborn care were extracted and included in the indicator compilation, together with key indicator metadata. We examined patterns and relationships across the compiled indicators. RESULTS: We identified 140 indicators linked to maternal and newborn health topics across the continuum of service provision. Fifty-five indicators relate to inputs and processes, 30 indicators relate to outputs, outcomes comprise 37 indicators in the database, and 18 impact indicators. A quarter of indicators proposed by global groups is either under development/discussion or is considered "aspirational", highlighting the currently evolving monitoring landscape. Although considerable efforts have been made to harmonize indicator recommendations, there are still relatively few indicators shared across key monitoring initiatives and some of those that are shared may have definitional variation. CONCLUSION: Rapid, wide-ranging work by a number of multi-stakeholder groups has resulted in a substantial number of indicators, many of which partially overlap and many are not supported with adequate documentation or guidance. The volume of indicators, coupled with the number of initiatives promoting different indicator lists, highlight the need for strengthened coordination and technical leadership to harmonize r

Concerted efforts from national and international partners have scaled up malaria control interventions, including insecticide-treated nets, indoor residual spraying, diagnostics, prompt and effective treatment of malaria cases, and intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This scale-up warrants an assessment of its health impact to guide future efforts and investments; however, measuring malaria-specific mortality and the overall impact of malaria control interventions remains challenging. In 2007, Roll Back Malaria's Monitoring and Evaluation Reference Group proposed a theoretical framework for evaluating the impact of full-coverage malaria control interventions on morbidity and mortality in high-burden SSA countries. Recently, several evaluations have contributed new ideas and lessons to strengthen this plausibility design. This paper harnesses that new evaluation experience to expand the framework, with additional features, such as stratification, to examine subgroups most likely to experience improvement if control programs are working; the use of a national platform framework; and analysis of complete birth histories from national household surveys. The refined framework has shown that, despite persisting data challenges, combining multiple sources of data, considering potential contributions from both fundamental and proximate contextual factors, and conducting subnational analyses allows identification of the plausible contributions of malaria control interventions on malaria morbidity and mortality.